Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Censored?
me | me

Posted on 02/25/2002 4:58:50 AM PST by doc30

I have a simple question for everyone here. Free Republic is a discussion forum that frequently involves articles and discussions of political candidates. Does this mean that, under campaign finance reform, Free Republic must be censored lest it violate the 60-day or 30-day rule in the current legislation? You thoughts please.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: doc30
On February 8, 1996, the Communications Decency Act was enacted into law.

Why Censoring Cyberspace is Dangerous & Futile

ISSUES in INTERNET RIGHTS - GOVERNANCE OF THE INTERNET -

Examples of this are:
· Eastern European railway gauges were designed to be incompatible across certain borders for the strategic purpose of impeding potential military invasion.
· Television broadcasting standards were deliberately chosen to stake out trade blocks and avoid domination by outside manufacturers.
· The Chinese government wants a one bit change in the underlying IP code of the Internet. The state of this single bit could determine whether something was accessible in China or not, thus censoring the Internet for several hundred million people.

61 posted on 02/25/2002 12:31:33 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Ok one more time. This country was built on Judao-Christian principles. I know I have said this many times. (Once on this thread.) For particulars consult with the Bible.
62 posted on 02/25/2002 12:33:08 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I'm sorry, but that does absolutely nothing to answer my question.

I asked what principle(s) conservatives use to determine which actions of state are just, and which are not.

Clearly just asserting "Judeo-Christian principles" as an answer is woefully inadequate.

For example, Judeo-Christian principles" prohibit the worship of any God other than the God of Abraham. And Jewish principles prohibit the consumption of certain food products. And Old Testament Jewish law prohibits cutting your beard, or having your wife in the house during the menses.

Are you suggesting that the United States should outlaw bacon, ham, and freedom of religion?

If not, then I think you need to do a bit more thinking about this.

63 posted on 02/25/2002 12:39:25 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Khepera; OWK
The trouble with you two is that you know each other so well. You start any conversation with the baggage from previous conversations to the point where it's rarely valuable for you to engage any more.

Khepera (and I) believe that the national morality - i.e. the way in which we define what is right and wrong - is foundationally Judeo-Christian. That doesn't mean you have to become a Jew or a Christian to be an American. It does mean that if we as a culture change that foundation then this nation will cease to exist. That has just as much to do with sexuality as the foundation for law and government. He may not restate that on each post, but he has stated that often enough that OWK should know it.

OWK (as far as I can tell) wants to pretend he is starting over each time on each new thread so that it will look like he is simply engaging the discussion rather than trying to set Khepera up. But neither one changes his viewpoint, so pretending the past hasn't happened is not fruitful.

It would be far easier to read both of you guys if you would simply admit your prejudices up front. You can do that in a way that is not insulting and then get on with it.

That's just my $.02, anyway.

Just out of curiosity, does either of you look the other up and follow the other around, or do you just like posts on the same subject? Be honest, now.

Shalom.

64 posted on 02/25/2002 12:42:34 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Can you point to a foundational principle (as opposed to a wish list of items) which unites all conservatives?

I can come up with the following starters:

1. The nation is more than a collection of individuals. The nation exists as an entity in its own right. The support and defense of the nation is an important responsibility of each citizen within the nation.

2. Government has a specific purpose that is not given by the Constitution, but is outlined in it. The purpose is to uphold the rights of the individual as given by G-d. This isn't written in the Constitution, it is written in the Declaration of Independence. Sometimes the Government best secures those rights by being active. Sometimes it best secures those rights by being inactive. But securing those rights is its goal at all times. Note, the Government does not secure the blessings of those rights. That is up to the individual. You receive your rights. What you do with them is up to you.

3. It is very difficult for men to walk the fine lines which the role of Government calls them to walk. It takes nearly infinite knowledge and a perfect thought process to avoid the law of unintended consequences. Men have neither. Therefore, when making Governmental decisions one should look at the vast sweep of history and stick with what has worked in the past. Note: This doesn't mean to blindly be a slave to tradition. When what has been tried in the past has failed, it should be abandoned. When it has succeeded, it should be advanced with all the strength we have.

Those are foundational principles of conservatism, as I see it. If the GOP no longer holds to those principles, perhaps it is no longer conservative.

I certainly agree with you, OWK, that the GOP has not effectively rallied conservatives. I wish they would stop trying to follow our culture and lead so they could again become a conservative party.

Shalom.

65 posted on 02/25/2002 12:50:11 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Argh
You know Argh, you are such a smart Ass...ociate... lol
66 posted on 02/25/2002 12:51:22 PM PST by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OWK
The old testament is full of laws which where being directed toward the Jewish people as a way to attain righteousness. Jesus Christ fulfilled these laws in respect to dietary laws and ceremonial cleanliness and sacrificial rules. Jesus did however state that some of the laws like those pertaining to Immoral Sexual behavior are still in effect. The founders however supported religious freedom and I support that as well. As a conservative I support religious freedom as a foundation of our country. As a Christian I do not support other Gods.
67 posted on 02/25/2002 12:51:35 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Thank you ArGee you have stated tese things quite solidly and I agree 100%
68 posted on 02/25/2002 12:55:23 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
You are wrong...Most of the founders were deists, not Christians.
A strong belief in God, not Christianity.

It is the godless Constitution, which calls on no higher power than "We the People", that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis to form the social contract that was to create the American system of government. English Common Law had a lot of influnce also.

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." is a quote from the Treaty with Tripoli...words written by no less than George Washington in his second term and passed without fanfare during the first term of John Adams.

69 posted on 02/25/2002 12:58:57 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: doc30
All I know is that whatever anti-speech provisions apply to me, I shall disobey.
70 posted on 02/25/2002 1:01:35 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: KDD
You need a strong history lesson. Most where Christians. Only the libertarians spread these lies. You believe them? Shame on you! You need to study more.
71 posted on 02/25/2002 1:14:23 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: doc30
NO WAY.
72 posted on 02/25/2002 1:16:08 PM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Again, you misunderstand. S-M does not ban "express advocacy." It bans television and radio "express advocacy" advertising by independent groups that do not use hard money. This is why there is a definition of "express advocacy" in the bill--to clarify what is banned elsewhere in the bill.

I agree with you that this whole thing is a totally unconstitutional scam, but you have to be accurate when you talk about what the bill forbids and what it does not.

73 posted on 02/25/2002 1:16:11 PM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
You need a strong history lesson.???

And you think the founders were Babtists???

LOL.

ok.

74 posted on 02/25/2002 1:21:00 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: KDD
You are wrong...Most of the founders were deists, not Christians.

Many were deists. But all subscribed to a Judeo-Christian concept of morality, regardless of why.

When we say this was a Judeo-Christian nation, we don't mean that everyone was required to be a Christian or a Jew, we mean that everyone shared an understanding of what is right and what is wrong, and that this understanding came from the Judeo-Christian morality.

Shalom.

75 posted on 02/25/2002 1:24:47 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: KDD;ArGee
Greg Koukl applies some clear thinking to the arguments from both sides of the culture war between the Left and the "Christian Right."

divider

Yesterday I was asked an important question in light of my earlier conversation about the general topic of culture wars. "Culture wars" is a term that's been coined to describe the conflict between the society and Christians, often identified in the press as the "religious right"--that radical element, as the L.A. Times reported on Thursday, that in the minds of many so-called moderate or mainstream Republicans is radicalizing the Republican party. We talked a little bit about the actual statistics that related to that issue and I'll mention them again today. It is the conflict between this religious right and the rest of society, apparently, for the heart of our culture. Of course, the views of the religious right is that they were here first. As Christians they reflect the intentions of the Founding Fathers who were also Christians. We have departed from that original intention of founding a Christian nation over the years, and we ought to get back to that because that is our nation's heritage. We were here first. That's what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence really are principally all about. That was the intention of those coming over here early on and we must get back to the faith of our fathers, as it were. At least that's the extreme expression of the right side of the culture wars. Of course the left is pronouncing a strong version of separation of church and state, and it says outright that there is an illegitimacy to having religious views and religious people and religious institutions informing public policy. Of course, they point to "separation of church and state" and to the First Amendment. Well, that's kind of in brief a thumbnail sketch of what culture wars are.

There are a number of people who are writing and talking about them. One is Mike Horton who has written a book entitled Culture Wars . He is the President of C.U.R.E. and we've had him on the show quite a number of times. He's made an important contribution to this discussion. But one question came up yesterday regarding something in his book Culture Wars and the assertion there that if we return to the faith of our founding fathers we're actually returning to the faith of deism and not to Christianity. The idea is that our Founding Fathers were principally deists. On this particular issue, as far the information I've gotten up to this point from my research at this point, I think this is a serious overstatement.

I mentioned a book yesterday, but I have it in front of me now. It's in my library and I was reading it this morning to brush up on some of the details. It's a book that, if you're interested in this topic, you need to read. The title is Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers and the author is John Eidsmoe. It's published by Baker Book House. What Eidsmoe does is look closely at the faith of the founding fathers.

Now the Founding Fathers, technically, are the fifty-five signers of the Constitution, although it's expanded a little wider to include people like Jefferson, who wasn't technically a signer of the Constitution but was a significant architect in terms of his personal impact, and some others who were close to the circumstances there. What Eidsmoe does is look closely at the lives of the principle architects and asks what was their religious conviction and what animated them to develop a Constitution. He notes a number of different things that were part of the significant background of these men. Calvinism is one. Another was Puritanism, which would be a type of Calvinistic expression. Puritans were Calvinistic in theology. They had some other things that went along with it. There was an influence here. Deism, Freemasonry and science were other categories, and the fourth category he looks at is law and government.

Then he looks at the lives of about fifteen of the Founding Fathers and he does an intense biographical analysis using largely first person accounts or primary source documents. In other words, he uses the things these men wrote themselves, to determine what their spiritual conviction was. He makes this point about deism in America: "The colonists were familiar with deist thinking. But deism never gained a strong foothold in America. The first Great Awakening, the religious revival of the 1740's, was partially responsible for cutting short the spread of deism. In many states at the time of the Constitutional Convention, confessed deists were not allowed to hold public office. Deism was generally held in low esteem as such laws indicate."

Then he gives some information that was compiled by Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas, which amounts to a series of biographical sketches of the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention. In these sketches they determine what was the spiritual or religious denominational conviction of each of these individuals. Of the 55 men who signed the Constitution, Bradford's list includes 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics and 3 deists. Only 3 deists out of 55. Now this doesn't speak at all to the actual spiritual character of each of these individual men. We don't know what their hearts' commitment really was to Jesus Christ, but back in those days, you couldn't be a member of a church lightly. You couldn't just show up and go. You weren't considered a member. Members were people who made an oath or a pledge to uphold the particular doctrines of the church and, of course, more in the shadow of high orthodoxy, those particular doctrines were much more clearly articulated than the generalized statements of faith you see in most churches today. What I'm saying is, the vast majority of the signers of the Constitution were men that were sworn members of particular denominations, and in virtually every case they were orthodox Christian denominations, with the exception of 3 deists. Some might suggest the exception of 2 Roman Catholics, although I don't necessarily. All the rest were Protestants and many from a reformed or Calvinistic tradition. This seems to fly in the face of the assertion that the faith of the Founding Fathers was principally deistic.

Now, there might be some other information that I don't have access to, but it seems to me to be an overstatement to say they were all deists.

Now one needs to take counsel about what we should make of such statistics and what ramification that has for us today, but it is still significant. In fact, with regard to one of the most well-known deists, that being Benjamin Franklin, I have a rather striking statement that he made at the Constitutional Convention itself. (By the way, one of the reasons I like this book is because of the copious reference to primary source documents. And especially the fairly detailed biographical sketches of the principle movers there at the Constitutional Convention.)

Franklin's deism was much more pronounced early on in his life and, even though he was raised as a Calvinist, he was a deist as a young adult, but that seems to have softened considerably as he got older. In fact, he made a significant pronouncement four or five weeks into the Constitutional Convention that really changed the nature of everything as he called for prayer to support the Constitutional Convention. The Convention actually convened May 14, 1787. They had a rough go of it for nearly five weeks. Finally, after getting virtually nothing done in five weeks, Benjamin Franklin stood to his feet in the convention hall and delivered an encouragement. Now this encouragement is recorded by James Madison in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention of 1787. He records Franklin having said this, which is well known and was the turning point of the convention. Madison says, "The small progress we have made after four or five weeks was melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. Rather than mere human understanding the delegates needed something more, in Franklin's words 'the father of lights to illuminate our understandings.'" And then he went on to remind them, and I'm summarizing here, that they fell back on God's help during the revolution. How much more ought they do this now. And I quote now from this piece: "And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Those, the words of Ben Franklin, five weeks into the Convention on the floor of the Convention. This is what turned the tide because right after that daily prayers were offered in the convention by Philadelphia clergymen.

Now I'm not suggesting he was a Christian. I don't think he was. But the point that I'm making here is that this is a very, very powerful commitment of the Convention to the God of the Scriptures. This from the lips of one of the three of fifty-five that had deistic convictions. The point I'm making is, even in the deists you have here a deism that is much different than the deism, the extreme rationalistic deism, that we often hear of where God has wound up the universe and just let it tick away on its own. That rationalism is revelation to them, that all religions ultimately lead to God and that there are no miracles. There's no intervention by God. There's no answered prayer. That kind of thing. Here we have a deism, if in fact that's what we do have here in Ben Franklin, that is much more akin to orthodox Christianity.

divider

Now it seems, by the way, that the Founders, even if they were devout Christians, did not desire a thorough-going Christian nation. How do I know that? Because they built into the First Amendment a non-establishment clause in which it was very clear that there was meant to be a healthy religious pluralism from the perspective of the states.

divider

Now, one again needs to decide what are we to make of this? There is a summary here of those fifteen main delegates, and of those delegates whose biographies are sketched out in this book, based on the information from their own writings and their own discourses, Eidsmoe would consider eight strongly Christian; those being George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Charles Pickney, John Witherspoon, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and Roger Sherman. Three more were probably Christian: Governor Morris, John Adams, and James Madison. And there were two that were probably not Christian: Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. So it does seem to be that the faith of our fathers was more decidedly orthodox Protestant Christian and not deistic. This, once again, from the book Christianity and the Constitution .

However, I think more needs to be said about this particular issue, and I think as I mentioned before there is a lack of clarity on both sides of this issue, those that argue against a Christian nation concept and those who are for it. I think the lack of clarity is first of all in regards to definitions. It's not entirely clear what people mean when they say that this was a Christian nation because the word Christian can mean a couple of different things. I think there's a lack of clarity on the facts themselves, claiming that the Founding Fathers were all deists seems to me to go very far beyond the facts as they are presented from the writings of those people themselves. I think there is a lack of clarity on the significance of this information. I've given you what I think is an idea of what the facts are, and I think that the facts are that we have a very strong orthodox Protestant Christian commitment by most of those who were considered Founding Fathers. But what's the significance of that? In other words, these people held to Christian doctrines themselves, essential Christian doctrines. Were they Christians in fact? Only God knows that. But it seems that many were actually "born again", in our terminology. But what if all of the Founders were devout Calvinists? What if all desired a thorough-going Christian nation? What then? Well, it doesn't follow from that that we have a civic responsibility to continue in that vein. And this is a lot of what culture wars is all about.

The Constitution itself allows for change. It allows for a healthy pluralism. That's the point of the First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen. The First Amendment clearly is a non-establishment amendment. At least part of it. In other words, these men did not want their faith, their religion to be established as the official religion of this country and we can't get around that fact. That's minimally what the First Amendment involves. There's more to this, a whole other side about the belligerence towards Christian religion in the public square nowadays, and that to me is totally unjustified given the historical facts and given the liberties in the Constitution.

Now I want to follow up on this with some other thoughts. I mentioned that even if we agree, and I think there's a lot of evidence to support this as I mentioned, that the Founding Fathers--those who were the signers of the Constitution of the United States and the principal architects (and I make a distinction because Jefferson wasn't a signer but he was an architect so he needs to be included)--I think most of them were orthodox Protestant Christians. The form of government was animated by their Biblical convictions. It doesn't make them born again just because that was the case, but it seems to be the case that they were animated by those convictions and they were Protestant Christians. Even so, we still have to ask the question, what is the significance of that today? I think there's been a lack of clarity regarding definitions about what it means to be a Christian--when we say these men were Christian, for one--a lack of clarity regarding the facts of the matter, and also a lack of clarity regarding the significance. Because even if it were true that all of the Founding Fathers were devout Calvinists and all desired a thorough-going Christian nation, it doesn't follow from that that we are somehow civicly obliged to produce that kind of nation now through the force of government. It may be good for us to do that. It may be moral for us to do that. But are we obliged to do so? That's a separate issue and it certainly doesn't follow from our Christian foundations that we are to continue in that fashion.

Now it seems, by the way, that the Founders, even if they were devout Christians, did not desire a thorough-going Christian nation. How do I know that? Because they built into the First Amendment a non-establishment clause in which it was very clear that there was meant to be a healthy religious pluralism from the perspective of the states. That's an important qualifier. From this perspective of the state's involvement or encouragement there was to be a healthy pluralism in which the state allowed the development of any religious belief and expression without interference. That's the point of the non-establishment clause. And this is why I don't think that Christians are within their rights to demand that we return back to the faith of our Fathers; but they are within their rights to petition for such a thing--to seek to persuade people to adopt a certain moral position--and this is one thing I'm concerned about in the rhetoric from the other extreme. Those on the right seem to exhibit a sense of offense. It's a sense that we've had something stolen from us and we deserve better. You've taken from us what is ours. Our country. The country belongs to Christians. Well, I don't think that's so, ladies and gentlemen. And all they need to do is to read through the Constitution to know that. It was not meant to be a Christian nation in that regard. We have the freedom as does anyone else to petition the population in general through voting and moral and rational suasion, to adopt certain principals in this republic. But they don't owe that to us even if we were here first.

Now having said that, I want to speak to the other side. The current open hostility to Christianity in relationship to culture, or in relationship to politics, or in relationship to public policy is completely unjustified. Separation of church and state, as it's being understood now, was simply not intended. We know it wasn't intended because the Founders in the early nation didn't practice what is being practiced now. Non-establishment was intended and this is why I believe in non-establishment; but I do not believe in separation of church and state if we take by separation that view of hostility of government towards, specifically in this case, Christian religion that is being practiced now. How do I know that separation was not intended? Because they didn't write separation, they wrote non-establishment. That's what the First Amendment says so there is no illegitimacy here in religious people, or religious institutions, or religious convictions informing public policy. I hear this all the time. When Roger Mahoney of the Roman Catholic Church makes a pronouncement regarding abortion, or the Catholic church says they won't give communion to politicians who are Catholics who believe in abortion, for example, people squawk about them confusing separation of church and state. Where have they been? Don't they understand what the Constitution says? I wonder if they've even read the First Amendment carefully.

divider

Now what do we have on the left? Well, we have the rhetoric and laws that say we must control what people are thinking about other people, called hate crimes. We have laws that force the expression of personal religious belief into the closet. We have laws that forbid politically incorrect speech. Where is the First Amendment when you need it?

divider

Listen, the First Amendment restricts the government, not the people. Let me say it again. The First Amendment restricts the government, not the people. Any Christian person, any Christian organization, any Christian conviction, or any other religious person, organization or conviction has its place in the public debate. That's what pluralism is. We all get a vote. We all get to speak our opinion. That's the way it works here. When someone tries to suggest otherwise, I just simply ask them, Are you suggesting that Christian people ought not vote, or ought not express their opinions? Tell me, which one do you have in mind? Because it's either one or the other if you suggest that religious sentiment in any form does not have a place in the public debate. That is not a violation of the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment. It is a violation of the separation of church and state as is presently being argued. But my point simply is, this view of separation is not what the Constitution demands. It is unconstitutional because it limits the people, which the Constitution was not meant to limit in this regard. Only the government was restricted in the area of involvement in religion according to the First Amendment.

What's really curious to me is that we have a radicalizing here in our culture, but the radicalizing is not coming from the right. The loss is not coming from the right, the radicalizing of the culture and the loss of freedom is coming from the left.

Ironically the rhetoric coming from the left says that it is the right that is dangerous, the religious right. I mentioned an article in the L.A. Times on Thursday that talked about the concern that the Republican party moderates or mainliners, as they were called, had about the religious right that was seeking to take over the party and radicalize the party. What's ironic to me is that in the same edition of the paper they had an L.A. Times poll that gave the relationship and statistics of what white Protestant Fundamentalists believe on these basic moral issues and family values issues, these kinds of things that apparently the right is using to radicalize the Republican Party, and therefore the rest of the country with in some measure. Some have considered the threat as great as the threat of Communism. But it also gives the listing of how all adults polled feel about these issues. I was stunned when I read the L.A. Times today, they having just printed this poll three days ago. In an editorial by the L.A. Times they repeated the idea that America does not line up with the radical right and is concerned about them; but at the same time, they are concerned about a loss of morality in public life. Well, their own poll says otherwise. Because in the area of abortion, prayer in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with the extremist fundamentalists. I mentioned that even 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best: 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% do not favor legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the radical right, these are the views that the rank and file average American holds statistically and sometimes the statistic is not just 51% to 49%, it's significantly above the median.

So, in fact, the right is mainstream by definition. And if the right is mainstream, then the left must secure their position by passing laws. This is an interesting observation. It is not one that I made. It was one that was made by others before me, but I think they're right. I think the danger in our culture is not from the right because the right holds, by and large, mainstream views, statistically. I'm talking about the religious right here. By definition the religious right would be considered moderate in that regard. The danger is coming from the left, whose views are not held by the majority, and so they use the implementation of government and laws to force their views on others.

Now, what is the so-called religious right asking? What is it that is so dangerous about the religious right? Well, they ask that we not take the lives of innocent, unborn children, that's one thing. They ask that we don't officially encourage a homosexual lifestyle that many feel is immoral and represents a genuine health threat to the community. That's another thing they ask for. Third, they ask that we continue to allow, as we have for nearly 200 years, the expression of our dependence upon God in prayer in public venues. And fourth, the other radical thing that the right is asking is that we allow a fair play of ideas on the issue of origins. That is the creation/evolution debate. That's it. Four things. Don't take the lives of unborn children. Don't encourage a sexual lifestyle that is dangerous to the community and many think is immoral. Allow the acknowledgment of God in schools as we have for 200 years through prayer. Allow a fair play on ideas on the issue of origins. That's the radical element on the right that is so abusive of our fundamental liberties. Of course, I'm being sarcastic here. This is what allegedly threatens our freedom and well-being of America.

Now what do we have on the left? Well, we have the rhetoric and laws that say we must control what people are thinking about other people, called hate crimes. We have laws that force the expression of personal religious belief into the closet. We have laws that forbid politically incorrect speech. Where is the First Amendment when you need it? We have laws that give special protection to diseases associated with certain sexual behavior that many people consider deviant and immoral. We have laws that forbid certain reading material. It doesn't forbid the sale of it, it forbids the reading of it. Firemen were threatened with not being able to read Playboy anymore in the fire station. Why? Because it may be offensive to some women. Now, I don't champion the reading of Playboy . That's not the point. The point I'm making is, where is the restriction of freedom coming from? It's not coming from the right who simply wants to make its ideas known and be allowed to play in the public square, in the marketplace of ideas. It's coming from the left who are actually passing laws that directly and forcibly restrict the fundamental freedoms of Americans.

We have laws that mandate that only one point of view on the issue of cosmology can even be mentioned to our school children, and that point of view can't even be critiqued or challenged. We have laws that make it illegal to even pray silently in front of certain public places. Now, I ask you, which side is most threatening to our fundamental freedoms? The right is asking for a hearing. The left is passing laws. You tell me which side is more dangerous

76 posted on 02/25/2002 1:41:57 PM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
. But all subscribed to a Judeo-Christian concept of morality, regardless of why.

Perhaps, but the distinction needs clarification.

Our Government was meant to be a secular one.
A Theoracy was feared more by the founders than a Monarchy was.

77 posted on 02/25/2002 1:43:23 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Rights Without Right

It is not true that political candidates hate to confront moral issues. The fact is, they rush to warm themselves in the glow of moral sentiments. What they abhor is the work of actually sorting out any specific moral controversy. The language of ethics is soothing at the level of generalities, and frightening at the level of specifics. Politicians-aided and abetted by the press-seek the moral high ground of empathy, and we are all a bit relieved by the postponement of hard choices.

Can it be otherwise? Certainly the politicians have only limited room for maneuver. There is usually not much to be obtained by alienating the undecided voters who might well be the difference between victory and defeat. What candidate wouldn't trim his sails to the prevailing winds? President Clinton is a master of this formula for success: preserve your base while moving as far away from it as you can to maximize the undecided vote. Is this not what elections are ultimately all about?

For the rest of us, press and public, surely our interest in preserving comity is enough to discourage contemplation of the differences between us. When disagreements revolve around moral differences, the potential for explosion is high. Even from our point of view, little seems to be served by pushing disagreements to the limits. Far safer to smother them in the platitudes of "different strokes for different folks," "live and let live," and so on. This is, after all, what has preserved the liberal democratic peace.

But it is also what has given an air of pervasive unreality to our society. We have a right to arm ourselves to the teeth; we have a right to enjoy pornography; we have a right to burn the American flag; we have a right to abort our fetuses; we have a right to die. We have a right to be reckless, inconsiderate, immature, and downright crazy. At least up to a point. There are of course limits, especially when we can discern a measurable impact on the rights and welfare of others. They too must have the same maximal space for self-abandonment. Is there not something truly nutty about a society that defines itself in such terms?

No wonder we have such an ache for the certainties of a bygone era. Family values, individual responsibility, community building are code words for that deeper yearning. The more fractured and fractious the assertion of our rights to personal freedom, the more the idyllic integrity of a communitarian era beckons us. Who wouldn't be drawn by the wholesome images of family and neighbors pulling together through the ups and downs of life, rather than the cacophony of rights claimants that seems to dominate our own noisy public square? The only difficulty is that we haven't a clue about how to get from one to the other. Merely cutting back the government won't bring about a deeper change.

Neither will endless talk about the need for personal responsibility and a new ethos of civility within civil society. Without tackling our specific moral responsibilities such talk is empty rhetoric. Its vacuity is all the more painfully exposed when the moment of undifferentiated empathy has passed. If we fail in our obligation towards specific human beings, then we have discredited the humanitarian sentiments espoused. The problem is that concrete moral issues have been preempted by the liberal presumption of privacy, and the relentless extension of the liberal language of autonomy has removed a common moral framework from our society. Somewhere we have lost our hold on the sense that there is a moral order independent of our choices and wishes.

We can point to many suspects in history as the causes of this loss, but only their common character really matters. It is the fate of a liberal political tradition to progressively consume its own moral substance. By removing more and more of the controverted issues from the public sphere and placing them in the private realm, it conveys the inexorable sense that there is no common moral order. There are only the "values" we choose to apply to ourselves. All that matters is that we are legally right in asserting our rights claims, and the legal order is finally accepted as the only moral order.

The independent moral order has not been abolished, of course. The fact that pornographers pose as (moral) champions of the First Amendment may be the clearest evidence that we still have in our civil society some sense of morality, and within that inchoate germ of self-realization lies the best hope for a moral reawakening. The inescapability of an order of good and evil, which is not ours to command but by which we will eventually be measured, is a steady pressure on our individual consciences, and it is made manifest by the elaborateness of attempts to deny it.

The problem is to find a way to make this moral order a presence in the public square amidst the dominant ethos of relativism. The Republicans have the best prospects, because their traditionalist intuitions are closer to the answer most of us seek. But they need to recognize that the problem is not completely new and that it has been successfully tackled in the past (as others have pointed out, notably, on the issue of abortion, George McKenna in the September 1995 issue of Atlantic Monthly).

Abraham Lincoln confronted a comparable conflict between competing values, democratic self-determination versus abolition of slavery. Lincoln knew the decision was not simply up to him, and understood that everything depended on maintaining the difference between the legally right and the morally right. Only inexorable moral pressure could move the nation. It was imperative that the difference between the moral and the legal be preserved so that they were not simply collapsed into whatever a particular legislative majority passed on a particular day.

Lincoln saw that it was necessary to establish an antislavery moral principle that would not abolish slavery, but would have the inestimable effect of stigmatizing it. No one's rights would be violated or suspended by the strategy. The law itself would establish that what was legally permissible within certain states was nevertheless not morally acceptable. What one could do and what one should do were quite different matters, and while it was not possible to prohibit the former it was certainly possible to restrict and anathematize it. Lincoln expected that, over time, slavery would disappear as a result of this strong disapprobation.

Could this not provide a model for dealing with our own moral and legal confusion? Recent legislative efforts to prohibit pornography on the internet are a useful step in this direction. The proposed restrictions (although they are currently on hold because of legal challenges) do not prohibit the right to traffic in such materials, but they do eliminate one particular vehicle of purveyance. Regulation in this sense not only has the advantage of limiting the controlled product, but it has the equally salutary effect of morally quarantining it. This is a mode of business, the proposed law insists, that is not approved. Moreover, the reach of public disfavor is extended by a robust critique of the individuals and companies responsible.

A parallel approach might be possible, as McKenna and others have suggested, on the most intractable of controversial issues. Abortion in fact elicits a very broad consensus of disapproval from the Clintons on down. Both the President and First Lady have averred their personal estimate of its immorality. The President proclaims, at least, his desire to make it "safe, legal, and rare." That makes more inexplicable his veto of legislation to disallow late- term partial-birth abortions. That is precisely the kind of law we need. The number of cases is tiny, the "rights" to be abridged are negligible, but the impact would be enormous. It would be a first tangible step in making the practice rarer than it is now, and it would brand the procedure as morally wrong- reflecting the electorate's broad unease and repugnance at what we are daily asked to condone as a constitutional right.

This is the large middle ground that can be tapped by any political leader who has the skill and integrity to represent it. It does not, in the absence of a clear political consensus, attempt to settle the isue of abortion once and for all. It does not substantively prohibit a freedom now embedded in social expectations. But it does distinguish between a legal right and a moral right, and it makes unmistakably clear the difference between the two.

Wherever the exercise of self-restraint begins, it has the inestimable value of forcing the recognition that we live within an order of limits. Our rights are not a poisonous brew destined to subvert any sense of difference between good and evil. We may not be able to define to our satisfaction where the line is to be drawn. But we can discern clearly its outer limits. The unambiguous recognition of such boundaries is an indispensable element in preserving the awareness of a moral order beyond our construction. Without that awareness we would eventually cease to regard respect for an order of mutual rights as itself something right.

An order of rights without right is simply that. Only if we recognize this do we have any chance of retaining contact with an order of right beyond rights. What we have a right to do may not in fact be right to do. The difference is crucial and it must be embedded in the law itself, because only then can we prevent the collapse of the morally right into the legally right. Acknowledging the limits of the law is indispensable to preserving the recognition of a moral order beyond it. Conversely, relieving legality of the burden of moral rightness is also indispensable to its preservation. The legal and the moral must remain distinct if they are to perform their roles of supporting and facilitating one another

78 posted on 02/25/2002 2:01:07 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
I note you think it's an unconstitutional scam. The truth is though this effects much more, and as I posted print and internet writings.The NRA, NRLC and FR are not for profit corps. For 60 days prior to an election, at least, the following holds true. The NRA can no longer print messages regarding candidate stances in it's jounals. It can no longer attach a sticker to the election issue, notifying it's members as to which candidate it endorses. The NRLC can no longer send out notices that inform it's members regarding what bozos protect infanticide.

The only way to get around this is to become for profit and then be limited to the ceiling spending the legislation gives for a maximum. The NRA can't reach it's members under those kind of rules. The truth is, they suck at a good part of this now. They remain cluless in a large number of elections until the last minute, and then quite often they endorse a grabber anyway. Notice Brady is an "educational, voter education group", the FEC isn't going to hold them to the same rules, because they're "special". Just like the million moos were special and didn't have to conform to non profit IRS rules to lobby and parade around belching their moo propaganda.

If this legislation becomes law, I as an individual will be required to fill out some GD forms if my efforts to get someone elected have an economic value greater than $50. I don't give a shoe what the particulars are about what I'm supposed to do, I won't do it anyway. I'm not going to dance for the socialists.

79 posted on 02/25/2002 2:06:19 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: doc30
In my mind, FR is a major media outlet that would be exempt under that bill. If that isn't so, then I'll just act as if it is.

And if it isn't so, and the speech police knock on JimRob's door to take him away because he defied them, then "my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor" will be 100% behind FR, Jim, or whomever.

I will back my words with my money. Who else will?

80 posted on 02/25/2002 2:12:23 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson